My next film was just as anticipated, albeit for the wrong reasons. Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000, was the 2000 blockbuster funded by the Church of Scientology and starring one of it's most high profile members, John Travolta. Widely regarded as one of the worst movies ever made, I had always wanted to see it. I wasn't disappointed, after minutes I was quite surprised at how much I had underestimated it's poorness, infact I wasn't sure I would survive the full movie. However, wheter it was because I had been nullified into accepting what I was watching or the film began to pick up, I did start enjoying it a little. The first time we see John Travolta's alien character Terl, is a true laugh out loud moment, added by the fact we see a slightly bemused Forrest Whitakker next to him, as his dimwitted sidekick. Travolta's performance is equally hilarious as he enunciates every syllabal of dialogue throughout the movie. Even the "man-animals" played by experienced professionals Barry Pepper and Kim Coates, give performances that are usually assosciated with sub-standard film school students. Even Travolta's wife, the gorgeous Kelly Preston, has a cringeworthy cameo, but again very amusing.
On a technical level it is shocking to think that this movie had a $75m budget, as it comes across as a film that wouldn't be confused with the equally lampooned output of movies that feature on the 'sci-fy' channel. Having said that the film did have a couple of things that I thought were worthy of the term 'artistic merit'. For instance the way the dialogue is briefly spoken in the alien form before turning into English for the benefit of the audience, I felt was clever and the tinting of certain scenes to coincide with their setting was an equally good idea, although this was poorly executed. The most questionable thing was the films insistance at filming every scene at a 45 degree tilt, as well as using slow-mo for every action sequence, which must have only served to double the movie's relatively short run time. Then again, this is part of the small entertainment value this movie has, it's sheer badness is actually quite entertaining, and even as a film it's quite fun, it often flirts with "so bad it's good". Another thing going for it is it's unpretentiousness, even with it's weird camera angles and constant slow-mo, you don't get the sense it's trying to be edgy and clever, but this may just due to be because it's so bad you don't detect any pretention. The climax of the film is utterly ludicrous, that it challenges the basic foundations of logic and principles of physics. In fact the ending of the movie is so awful that I wouldn't be surprised if some viewers exited the film with a lower IQ.
Ultimately, yes it's a very bad film, but when compared to other high-profile films of recent years I prefered it to things such as Spiderman 3, Pirates of the Carribean: At The Worlds End and the plain banal Epic Movie. Those films made me a bit angry, whereas Battlefield Earth is a bit fun, I find it quite similar to The Postman, though the latter has significantly better production values. I've seen worse movies, just about.
17 Again, a body swap comedy in the fashion of Big and 13 going on 30 (i.e not in the bodyswap fashion of Freaky Friday and Vice Versa), was a more recent film I watched this month. Starring Matthew Perry as a 40 year old questioning where his life's gone wrong, he's given the chance to do it all again by morphing into his younger self (the much more beautiful Zac Efron). The casting of Zac Efron as a young Matthew Perry, was just one of the many logic defying scenarios portrayed, in a film that is possible contender for Battlefield Earth in that sense. For instance Matthew Perry isn't a neglectful father, yet his estranged family never question his total absence from their lives for a period of at least 2 weeks. The fact that his estranged wife even says how much he looks like her husband when he was younger. I accept their's suspension of disbelief, but this was just plain stupidity. Anyway the film meanders through the trademarks of a movie that is akin with body swapping. Which is of course another problem, as it offers nothing new, it has a slight modicum of comedy about it. The funniest bit is the perverse moment where his daughter (played by the eternally youthful Michelle Trachtenberg) falls for her "young" father. The rest of the comedy is rather tired, for instance every scene featuring the proficiently unfunny Thomas Lennon, and it offers nothing new. It's ultimately a film that passes a couple of hours, it's inoffensive enough and run of the mill to get through, but I spent most of the time highlighting it's faults rather than letting go.
How To Marry A Millionaire saw me return to my Marilyn Monroe viewing, where she starred opposite Lauren Bacall and Betty Grable. I found it very similar in style to the film made around the same time Gentleman Prefer Blondes, sadly this wasn't quite as good as that. It was mildly entertaining as these 3 women set out to find themselves some millionaires to marry, but it didn't have the same sense of comic panache that Howard Hawks' classic had. As for the performances, each did their required job, but they came of as pretty standard espescially by Monroe and Bacall, Grable came off as the most impressive, portraying the ditzy blonde caught up in a whirlwind true romance. There were a few moments of genuine comedy, espescially the scene with Monroe on a plane, but as I've said it wasn't quite as witty as other offerings around that period. Of course, you know exactly how the film will end, but it's a nice enough journey along the way.
The month also saw me finally catch Sean Penn's Into the Wild, based on the true events of Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch). He was a student, who after graduating, decided to donate all of his savings to charity, up and leave his family and travel America. It was my third Hirsch film, and I've also enjoyed his other roles, but this was such an impressive performance from someone so young as he completely immerses himself in the role. Along his adventure we meet all types of people that both help his character, shape him, as well as learning a little off him.
I think it's a film that a lot of males aged between 16 and 30 can identify with. That point in life, when the world is at your mercy and you're without responsibilities. It's just about taking that one brave step and taking a chance on life. He lives of the land pretty much entirely, travelling America with practically anything. Of course we also experience the pain and anguish of his family through the narration of his sister (Jena Malone). It's hard to not go into too much detail as to not reveal too much, but one of the most striking relationship he forms is with an elderly man in the Mohajve desert, played superbly by veteran Hal Holbrook. It was a very good film, and though it was a bit long, it really gave a sense of adventure and wilderness. As I say Hirsch was superb, even the famous support provided interesting portrayels with limited screen time. I suppose what helped was being able to connect to the main character so well, it might not be one for everyone, but I found it heartfelt and enjoyed it.
Bubba Ho-Tep was a low-budget comedy-cum horror that sees Bruce Campbell take the role of an aging Elvis opposite a black John F. Kennedy (Ossie Davis) together they must fight off a Mummy terrorising their nursing home. Of course the plot is ludicrous, but I came in expecting something that was naff, but enjoyable. Sadly this wasn't the case, the film is pretty awful, where little actually happens in the movie. It's fans will suggest that it's a great commentary of modern culture's effect on the elderly, but I'd rather just watch Umberto D, which portrays the same scenario in a far more provocative and accomplished manner. I can't believe this is held in moderately high regard by critics, because even the horror element to it is pretty awful, the comedy is weak throughout. Campbell provides a couple of chuckles alá Evil Dead mode and his portrayel of an aging king is alright, but seriously? Is this what passes for a good movie these days? I'm left totally confused as to what exactly I didn't get about the movie. Even Campbell's moderate, but disappointing follow up My Name is Bruce was an improvement. I think I've given Campbell enough attention to just stick to his Evil Dead work, the rest goes over my head.
I also manage to get to the cinema this month and wath 21 Jump Street, based on the US tv series starring Johnny Depp of the same name. It was another film I went in seeing with baited breath, on paper it seems like the same old type of comedy movie that seems to be rehashed every 6 months. Well yes, it was pretty unoriginal in terms of plot, but it more than made up for it in terms of comedy value. Again, the comedy was low brow, but it really seemed worked, it was stupid and infantile, but in a good way. It really appealed to my silly side of humour, where seeing moronic, juvenile things can be funny when performed well. This is where Jonah Hill comes in, again it's more of the same from this comic actor, who plays pretty much an identical role to his other films (I haven't seen Moneyball yet). However, if it ain't broke don't fix it, I enjoyed Hill in the rather overhyped Superbad and even the smaller roles of his early career. Here he again excels as the undercover cop, who enjoys his second chance at high school. He is well supported by Channing Tatum, who plays his role appropriatley, so that it balances the comedy with the more dramatic elements. I had never seen a Tatum picture before this, as the majority of his films look like romcom tripe, so I wasn't expecting much. But the chemistry really worked between the two and the results are a thoroughly enjoyable comedy. It is a film that is very similar to last year's The Other Guys, but where that was somewhat laboured in laughs, this is not and although it occasionally goes too far, is still one the better comedy films to be released in recent years. It should also be noted that Hill co-wrote this picture, which again makes me look forward to seeing more of his work, as well as the highly probably sequel to this venture.
I ended the month with a viewing of Hot Rod, which was a comedy in the style of Napoleon Dynamite meets Old School. Stupid, irreverent and at times off-beat, this story of self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble (Andy Samberg), was my type of comedy. It was pretty funny and should definetly be considered amongst one of the better recent comedies of that ilk. Whilst, like 21 Jump Street, the story felt like a rehash of many other comedies of the genre, at least it did it well and remember to include the comedy. The SNL-centric main cast are supported by against types Ian McShane and Sissy Spacek. Also featured are Will Arnett (in familiar Arrested Development mode) and the incredibly gorgeous Isla Fisher, who is similar in looks to Amy Adams, but possibly more cute. The film was entertaining and enjoyable and it's one worthy of repeated viewings.
No comments:
Post a Comment